Case 6002576/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Bradshaw v Vranch House Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002576/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lambert Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Bradshaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs D Bradshaw’s case against Vranch House Limited was heard at Exeter Employment Tribunal over 8 to 11 September 2025, with Employment Judge Lambert sitting alone. The written judgment records that claims raised on or before 28 December 2023 were outside the relevant time limit, and that this affected the detriment(s) complaint based on protected disclosures under ss.47B and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal then stated that the remaining complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. Those were automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, constructive unfair dismissal under ss.94, 95, 98 and 111 ERA 1996, unlawful deductions of wages under ss.13 and 23 ERA 1996, and breach of contract under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment says claims raised on or before 28 December 2023 were outside the relevant time limit and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear them. This affected the detriment(s) claim based on raising a protected disclosure under ss.47B and 48 ERA 1996. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A ERA 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal contrary to ss.94, 95, 98 and 111 ERA 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions of wages contrary to ss.13 and 23 ERA 1996 were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- ss.94, 95, 98 and 111 ERA 1996
- ss.13 and 23 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- ss.47B and 48 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.